coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Volgograd.
5.  Pursuant to a decision of the Volgograd Central District Administration of 14 October 1987 the applicant began receiving a monthly single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was born on 15 April 1986.
6.  In 1998, from April to July, the applicant received no payments.
On 4 September 1998 the applicant brought proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Volgograd (Центральный районный суд города Волгограда) requesting the payment of outstanding sums.
7.  By a judgment of 21 September 1998 the court allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Finance Department of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Волгоградское облфинуправление) to pay the applicant 467.56 roubles (RUR).
8.  Following the entry into force of the judgment, the court’s bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum awarded to the applicant. However, the applicant was informed that in 1998 the court judgment could not be enforced, because the defendant lacked sufficient funds.
9.  The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Управление юстиции администрации Волгоградской области), which on 16 February 1999 forwarded her complaint to the bailiff’s service of the first instance court for reply and necessary measures.
In an undated letter of 1999, the bailiff’s service informed the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution, but had not yet received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant.
10.  According to the Governments submissions, which were not contested by the applicant, the sum of RUR 467.56 was paid to her twice – on 29 September 2000 and on 9 October 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1964, 1972 and 1954 respectively and live in Voronezh.
5.  The applicants are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2001 they brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On 5 October 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the first applicant 4,295.89 Russian roubles (RUR) against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 16 October 2000.
7.  On 9 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment and returned the writ of execution to the first applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
8.  In January – February 2004 the first applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
9.  On 27 December 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the second applicant RUR 2,221.45 against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 7 January 2000 and a writ of execution was sent to the bailiffs.
10.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 27 December 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the second applicant, referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.
11.  In January – February 2004 the second applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
12.  On 30 January and 29 May 2001 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the third applicant RUR 3,939.15 and 2,550.07 respectively. The judgments entered into force on 12 February and 11 June 2001.
13.  On 12 February and 14 June 2001 writs of execution were issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments and returned the writs of execution to her, referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.
14.  On 3 September 2001, in reply to the third applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgments in her favour, the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.
15.  In January – February 2004 the third applicant was paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.
16.  On 27 October 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the fourth applicant RUR 5,024.98. The judgment entered into force on 8 November 2000.
17.  On 14 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment and returned the writ of execution to the fourth applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
18.  In January – February 2004 the fourth applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant filed a civil action in damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the weekly magazine G. (“the defendant”), claiming that it had published a libellous article about him.
6.  The court scheduled the first hearing for 1 April 1996. That hearing, as well as the one scheduled for 11 March 1997, were adjourned at the applicant’s request.
7.  At the hearing on 17 April 1998 the defendant submitted its reply to the applicant’s claim. On 13 April 1999 the court heard the applicant.
8.  The hearings scheduled for 27 September 1999 and 26 November 1999 were adjourned because the witnesses summoned did not appear.
9.  On 28 February 2000 the court heard one witness and concluded the main hearing. On the same day, it gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant four months later.
10.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.
11.  On 28 February 2001 the case-file was transferred to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) as the second-instance court. On 14 May 2002 that court returned the case-file to the Municipal Court because it lacked the power of attorney. Having obtained the missing document, the case-file was returned to the County Court on 27 September 2002. Subsequently, on 25 March 2003 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 February 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court held a hearing and decided to obtain additional witness statements. The hearings scheduled for 16 June and 23 November 2004 were adjourned because of improper summoning of the witnesses. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 April 2005. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
13.  Meanwhile, on 10 December 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 13 June 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible since the County Court had already decided on the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1997 – 2000.
6.  On 28 January 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 6,882.59 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 8 February 2000.
7.  On 6 March 2000 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
8.  On 4 November 2000, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment in her favour, the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.
9.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 28 January 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
10.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant is in receipt of welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On 25 December 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 10,017.45 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 6 January 2001.
7.  On 23 January 2001 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 December 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
9.  On 26 April 2002 the applicant requested the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in her favour.
10.  By letter of 7 May 2002 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region invited the applicant to re-submit the writ of execution to the bailiffs.
11.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
4.  The applicants are residents of Voronezh.
5.  The applicants are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2000 they brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On the dates set out in the appendix the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned them the writs of execution referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.
8.  In 2002 – 2004 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in the favour enforced.
9.  On 2 June 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.
6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Križevci, Croatia.
7.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant’s house in Bjelovar was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 29 January 1997 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the State for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 16 September 1999.
10.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the stay on his proceedings. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.
11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 25 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).
12.  On 8 December 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed his claim accordingly. The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) where the case is apparently still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On 2 November 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 2,388.49 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 13 November 2000 and on the same date the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
7.  On 28 September 2001 the Voronezh Department of the Central Bank of Russia informed the applicant that the judgment in her favour could not be enforced for lack of the debtor’s funds.
8.  On 11 September 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant without enforcement.
9.  By letter of 21 March 2003 the Voronezh Department of the Central Bank of Russia invited the applicant to address her queries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 2000 to the debtor.
10.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 1999.
6.  On 25 February 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 3,952.66 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 6 March 2000.
7.  On 19 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.
8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 February 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.
9.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.
4.  The applicants are residents of Voronezh.
5.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2002 the applicants brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
6.  On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
7.  Subsequently the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned the writs of execution to them referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.
8.  In 2001 – 2002 the applicants brought several sets of civil proceedings against private banks in Voronezh in which the defendant authority had its accounts, claiming the recovery of the awarded amounts. The domestic courts rejected those claims as unfounded.
9.  In June 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Balatonkenese.
5.  The applicant brought an action against a building society for repossession of real property. He also claimed compensation. On 15 May 1992 the Budapest Regional Court awarded him 624,986 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation.
6.  On 28 October 1994 the applicant, being dissatisfied with the award, brought another action for compensation against the building society on partly modified legal grounds.
After having held a hearing on 23 February 1995, the Buda Central District Court dismissed his action on 12 March 1995. The applicant appealed.
7.  On 11 October 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The applicant filed a petition for review on 19 January 1996.
8.  On 30 May 1997 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 1997 the case was given priority. Hearings took place on 17 December 1997 and 19 March 1998. On 12 May 1998 a real-estate expert was appointed. Following a warning, the latter presented his opinion 30 September 1998.
10.  On 13 October 1998 the Buda Central District Court held a hearing and, on 21 October 1998, dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 26 May 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his motion for bias.
12.  On 2 June 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing and, on 9 July 1999, partly changed the first-instance judgment and awarded the applicant HUF 152,204 in compensation. The applicant filed a petition for review on 7 January 2000.
13.  On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. This judgment was served on 23 May 2002.
5.  The applicant was born in 1952. He was detained in Burdur prison at the time of lodging his application.
6.  On 28 March 1994 an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant.
7.  On 14 April 1994 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment, accusing the applicant together with two other co‑accused of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.
8.  On 19 October 1995 the Malatya State Security Court decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the applicant as he could not be found.
9.  On 30 August 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police. On 6 September 1996 he was interrogated by two police officers.
10.  On 10 September 1996 he was brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. He denied his statements made in police custody.
11.  On 30 October 1996 an additional indictment was submitted by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court.
12.  On 20 January 1998 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713, and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
13.  On 2 March 1998 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court.
14.  On 7 December 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and on the same day upheld the above judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the village of Ivanivka, the Lugansk region of Ukraine.
5.  On 6 September 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Court ordered the Krasnolutchska State Mine to supply the applicant with 8,850 kg of coal.
6.  On 6 October 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  On 5 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.
8.  On 21 October 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.
9.  On 30 July 2003 the same court ordered the Mine to supply the applicant with another 8,850 kg of coal.
10.  On 1 September 2003 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 30 July 2003.
11.  On 19 October 2004 that judgment was also enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5.  On 18 January 2000 the Moskovskyi District Court of Kharkiv ordered the State Enterprise “Kharkivskyi Elektromekhanichnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,730.48[1] in salary arrears.
6.  On 6 February 2000 the Moskovskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 17 September 2003 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
8.  On 8 August 2003 the applicant received the full amount of the judgment debt.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the village of Mykolaivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Slovyansky Town Court against her employer, the State-owned “Slovyansky Keramichny Kombinat” company, to recover salary arrears. On 6 September 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,485.10[1] in salary arrears and compensation for damages.
6.  On several occasions the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgment could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001.
7.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Slovyansky Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 6 September 2000. On 23 May 2003, the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated. The court found that the Bailiffs were prohibited from attaching the debtor’s property and, therefore, could not be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment.
8.  In August 2004 the liquidation of the debtor was initiated and, on 7 December 2004, the Bailiffs’ Service transferred the execution writs to the liquidation commission.
9.  The judgment of 6 September 2000 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Lozova, Ukraine.
5.  On 14 April 1999 the Lozova Town Court ordered the Lozova Town Department of Education to pay the applicant UAH 1,407.14[1] in salary arrears.
6.  On 7 June 1999 the Lozova Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.
7.  In October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 24 May 2002 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The court held that the judgment could not be enforced because of a lack of funds in the State budget.
8.  On 13 August 2002 and 30 January 2003, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 24 May 2002.
9.  On 24 November 2004 the judgment of 14 April 1999 was enforced in full.